- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils.....
People in the southern Swiss canton of Ticino voted to impose the country's first ban on face-covering veils on Sunday, following in the footsteps of French and Belgian restrictions that rights groups say discriminate against Muslims.
Almost two thirds of voters in the Italian-speaking district backed the ban that still needs to be approved by the federal parliament in Bern before coming into effect.
Campaigner Giorgio Ghiringhelli, who drew up the proposal, said the result would send a message to "Islamist fundamentalists" he said were in Ticino and across Switzerland.
"Those who want to integrate are welcome irrespective of their religion," he said in a statement on the website ilguastafeste.ch.
"But those who rebuff our values and aim to build a parallel society based on religious laws, and want to place it over our society, are not welcome," he added.
Amnesty International said the vote was a "black day for human rights in Ticino".
There are roughly 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, about 5 percent of the population
France was the first country in Europe to pass a law banning full-face veils in public, in 2010, and Belgium later followed suit......snip~
Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils | Reuters
Well, I think this guy has it Right with what he is saying. Why should any accept this full face veil issue brought on by opposition groups that are Arab or Arab backed. Isn't it time to roll with the changes? Why should they get to be covered in todays society where all are afraid or scared of crime dropping down into their little worlds? I have no problem with any that want to do this. If others aren't allowed to do so or we haven't had to pass laws over such. Due to some common sense. Then why should Arabs and others like them be given any special treatment. Thoughts upon the matter?
This specific case deals with Switzerland, but our Constitution guarantees "free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. If their religion requires them to cover their faces, it falls under that.
Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils.....
People in the southern Swiss canton of Ticino voted to impose the country's first ban on face-covering veils on Sunday, following in the footsteps of French and Belgian restrictions that rights groups say discriminate against Muslims.
Almost two thirds of voters in the Italian-speaking district backed the ban that still needs to be approved by the federal parliament in Bern before coming into effect.
Campaigner Giorgio Ghiringhelli, who drew up the proposal, said the result would send a message to "Islamist fundamentalists" he said were in Ticino and across Switzerland.
"Those who want to integrate are welcome irrespective of their religion," he said in a statement on the website ilguastafeste.ch.
"But those who rebuff our values and aim to build a parallel society based on religious laws, and want to place it over our society, are not welcome," he added.
Amnesty International said the vote was a "black day for human rights in Ticino".
There are roughly 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, about 5 percent of the population
France was the first country in Europe to pass a law banning full-face veils in public, in 2010, and Belgium later followed suit......snip~
Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils | Reuters
Well, I think this guy has it Right with what he is saying. Why should any accept this full face veil issue brought on by opposition groups that are Arab or Arab backed. Isn't it time to roll with the changes? Why should they get to be covered in todays society where all are afraid or scared of crime dropping down into their little worlds? I have no problem with any that want to do this. If others aren't allowed to do so or we haven't had to pass laws over such. Due to some common sense. Then why should Arabs and others like them be given any special treatment. Thoughts upon the matter?
Except it's not really a part of their religion, rather an addition after the fact. Regardless of what it is, are there no limits to religious freedom? If I made up a religion saying that I have to wear a ski mask and a samurai sword while in public, should I be able to?This specific case deals with Switzerland, but our Constitution guarantees "free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. If their religion requires them to cover their faces, it falls under that.
-- If their religion requires them to cover their faces --
Echoing bans in France and Belgium, the measure does not single out Muslims directly.
It states that "no-one may mask or hide their face on the public highway, nor in places open to the public, except places of worship, nor those offering a public service"
I wouldn't support a law that made it illegal to wear a face covering in this country. I would, however, support businesses (banks, credit unions, currency exchanges, stores, etc., etc.) and government buildings/services, airports, etc., who said "No Face No Service."
Trouble is their religion doesn't call for facial covering - otherwise all muslim women would cover their faces. Equally, the niqab is actually banned in some muslim countries too.
Anyhow - reading the article further, the ban (like the French one) bans facial covering regardless of religion, race and gender. Considering the alpine skiing holidays that Switzerland sometimes is known for - I wonder when the first winter skier will be hauled into a police station for covering their face from the freezing weather out on the slopes.
This specific case deals with Switzerland, but our Constitution guarantees "free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. If their religion requires them to cover their faces, it falls under that.
We clearly requested the Mormons stop having plural marriages,This specific case deals with Switzerland, but our Constitution guarantees "free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. If their religion requires them to cover their faces, it falls under that.
Trouble is their religion doesn't call for facial covering - otherwise all muslim women would cover their faces. Equally, the niqab is actually banned in some muslim countries too.
Wearing a cross necklace is also not a requirement of the Christian religion, but we say that it falls under "free exercise" under our laws. The more exacting forms of Islam do say "cover your face." We have had no problem with various religious dictates about what a person wears with other religions - we don't force the Amish to adopt a more modern style of dress, but if you asked them it's part of their religion (though it isn't in other forms of Christianity). Same with Mormon underwear or Sikh turbans.
Heya IC. Most that ski.....once indoors. Remove the scarves that cover their faces. Especially when engaging into a conversation with others.
Sikh turbans and or knives are actually part of the religious attire and recognised as such. On Mormon underwear, I'll take your direction as I've never heard of any specific requirement however women in full face veils are more of a cultural thing than a religious one I'm afraid.
Hi MMC - the ban as I understand it is outdoors and in public spaces. I think skiers will be affected.
If I made up a religion saying that I have to wear a ski mask and a samurai sword while in public, should I be able to?
Except it's not really a part of their religion, rather an addition after the fact.
Just give me, I mean god, 10% of your income, become my disciple and do whatever I tell you and you're in.Sounds like a pretty bad ass religion. Where do I sign?
Trouble is their religion doesn't call for facial covering - otherwise all muslim women would cover their faces.
I like how you cut out the rest of my post instead of addressing my actual point. Is there no limit to religious freedom?There are lots of aspects of any religion that are 'additions after the fact" or reinterpretations. Neither makes them any less a part of someone's religion.
Wearing a cross necklace is also not a requirement of the Christian religion, but we say that it falls under "free exercise" under our laws. The more exacting forms of Islam do say "cover your face." We have had no problem with various religious dictates about what a person wears with other religions - we don't force the Amish to adopt a more modern style of dress, but if you asked them it's part of their religion (though it isn't in other forms of Christianity). Same with Mormon underwear or Sikh turbans.
I like how you cut out the rest of my post instead of addressing my actual point.
Ia there no limit to religious freedom?
Why cant I wear a ski mask and a samurai sword while I run errands?
Oh so this is just some of that dumbass chuckles ****? I even stated in my post that it doesn't matter if its part of their religion or not, which you cut out, along with my actual point you refuse to address. The topic is limits to religious freedom not what is part of the muslim faith.The rest of your post didn't have anything to do with my comment, so why would I bother to quote it?
What does that have to do with the above point? Which is that religions evolve and change, so a bunch of non-islamic westerners saying something isn't part of islam doesn't carry much currency with the people who do view their religion in such terms.
It's like the dumb-asses that argue the 40 virgin thing is actually a reference to raisans
Is that part of some fetish, or something?
....however women in full face veils are more of a cultural thing than a religious one I'm afraid.
Just give me, I mean god, 10% of your income, become my disciple and do whatever I tell you and you're in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?